Mum refused emergency contraception. Because pharmacist doesn’t agree with it. Grrr.

[Evenquieterlife33]

I cannot get my head around this- if a medication is available for legal sale and use in the U.K no pharmacist should be imposing their personal beliefs on anybody and refusing to sell it to them. Absolute piss take in my opinion. It’s outrageous that this is legal. I have never heard of women being refused emergency contraception because it clashes with the pharmacists personal beliefs until I read this. I am got smacked. I bet I could find a pharmacist who doesn’t like to dispense antibiotics, I can’t see them being able to turn people away. The older I get the more of this shit seems to be visible. It’s either getting worse or I’ve had my eyes shut for a very long time.
apple.news/AsxAxgpzIQI-IZWwX5YbJRQ

I am sure their religious beliefs only come in to play when it's related to women's health

This sums it up perfectly.

And if this was a male wanting to buy hormones to make him more ‘feminine’ (my highlight as I don’t believe that hormones in any way change a persons sex but you get the gist of what I’m saying here) and they were refused those hormones on the ground that the pharmacists religion didn’t support transitioning then they would be lawyered up and in court with the full support of local mps and lobby groups to access any medication he damn well likes. And we all know why.

Misogyny

Years ago my gp gave me a prescription for the morning after pill with the comment she was Catholic and didn't agree with it. I think it should be clearly marked in the pharmacy window so I could boycott the pharmacy and hope others would too. In an area where there were not alternative pharmacies, I don't know what women would be expected to do. The world seems to be going backwards

They might get lawyered up, but as there have already been cases where doctors refused treatments other than contraception/termination services (which are the only services for which there is a conscience clause), they can expect to lose, just like those who tried before.

Would be grateful for those more expert on equality law to give an opinion on this: If the pharmacist was prepared to sell condoms to a male but not the MAP to a female would that be a breech if the Equality Act 2010?

It wouid be a breach of their NHS T&Cs. If you opt out of either/both contraception and termination series, you opt out. You don't get to cherry pick which bits. So yes, if someone was doing this it would be worth taking advice on hat to do about it.

(I imagine it's been cleared from a legal viewpoint and as back to front as it sounds I suspect the reason it is legally allowable is because it would be seen as infringing on the human rights of religious Pharmacists to force them to supply MAP*

The irony being that in many ( and obviously not all before I'm accused of aything) cases, religion is often forgotten about when it comes to drinking or gambling or pre marital sex, or adultury, drugs etc but suddenly when it comes to contraception its a different story. I dont believe truthfully that there is an opinion religiously on contraception, religion has been around far longer than the morning after pill has so where can it say its wrong?

And something that came about when the average age of death would have been about 15 where realistically you would have popped out 1 or 2 kids and they both died needs updating for an age where people live into the 90s and can have 20 kids all of which survive.

I'm sure I will be told that's not a good way to think though.

Many doctors and pharmacists of faith happily provide all services, even though they have to be 'hypocrites' to breach their faith teachings and do so. So hypocrisy is a double-edged thing when looking at individuals and how they use, or don't use, the conscience clause.

but the objection would have to be against providing contraceptive services to everyone, and I bet most would sell condoms to a man without even thinking, therefore the women would be treated less favourable due to being female

^My local pharmacy doesn’t sell lube, condoms, or any form of female contraception. The pharmacist is still pretty amazing and one of the few medical professionals I trust. He displays the notices very clearly but will still get bolshy dickheads in their pyjamas arguing with him because they can’t be bothered to go to the nearest Asda.

Didn’t realise you need a ball gown to buy emergency contraception.

What is so amazing about this pharmacist?

You don't get to pick and choose which bits of your job that you will and won't do.

I am all for religious freedom but you do not get to impose your religious beliefs into your workplace unless you are a vicar (or similar). I don't give two fucks whether you as a GP or pharmacist agree with standard contraception and emergency contraception or not. It is LEGAL in this country and therefore you should provide it. No ifs, no buts, nada. Do your fucking job.

If you feel that strongly about not providing it, then go and find something else to do.

This issue utterly enrages me. I absolutely respect the right of someone else to not want to do something that goes against their personal belief system. But if that request is a normal feature of their chosen job and it's legal, then they should absolutely do it.

religion has been around far longer than the morning after pill has so where can it say its wrong?
Previously the point of conception was agreed by religious types to be the quickening, so abortifacients used before this time weren't specifically banned.

And something that came about when the average age of death would have been about 15 where realistically you would have popped out 1 or 2 kids and they both died

The average lifespan was never as short as people think, it's a skewed figure because of the number of deaths in childhood. If you made it to age six you were as likely to make four score and ten as anyone else

And if it bothers them so much, then why didn't they factor this in when choosing to do the job?

Yet again women and girls get to suffer the consequences of a load of controlling, patriarchal bullshit.

I thought we were a secular country, not subject to release gious kaw. Why should someone choose to apply their religious beliefs to my freedom to choose.
Pharmacies who do NHS work should act within the law. I am not a Catholic or of any religious denomination.

My sister was refused the morning after pill aged 17 by a GP who was Catholic. She was pointed in the direction of a clinic miles across town. She had no bus fare and had to walk in the snow, this was in the days before over the counter.
I had no difficulty getting it from another GP in the same practice a few months later. I am a health care professional and think it's outrageous to refuse patients treatment which is legal and readily available elsewhere.

You don't get to pick and choose which bits of your job that you will and won't do.
But apparently you can.

I am all for religious freedom but
It's not just religious. I mentioned registering a birth certificate with no mother as the mother was a transman. If that gets made law does the registrar have to suck it up? What about if we legalise child marriage? Does she have to just follow orders?

If you feel that strongly about not providing it, then go and find something else to do.

This issue utterly enrages me.

I get it but if you agree with someone being forced to do something they are morally opposed to because it is legal, you are saying that you agree with being forced to do something YOU find morally abhorrent because it is legal.
Own a shop? What happens when you are required to rent it out as a brothel because oh look we've legalised sex slavery. You try to protest and get sued for discrimination against sex workers.
Work in finance? A start-up comes to you for a loan, they want to farm out Indian women's wombs to sell babies on the internet. Oops we've just made that legal too. You try to protest and get sued for discrimination and sacked.

Do you see? You don't have to agree with the pharmacist. You can question their motives, and how pious they really are. Maybe it is just misogyny. But it's good that there's a conscience clause. Like a free vote in the Commons. We should be able to hold opinions! We shouldn't be able to discriminate based on those opinions.

The issue is that the provision of necessary emergency contraception should not be gatekept by a privately employed pharmacist anyway. There shouldn't be areas where that person is the only option. That person should have to announce loud and clear that they don't provide the full range of services because of their beliefs.

If it means passing a law that means the morning after pill can be sold by a non-pharmacist then let's do that. If it means legally mandated signage outside pharmacies that fail to provide total care great. If it means private employers having to bring extra staff in to cover for a refusenik fine. Let Sainsbury's/Lloyd's pay for extra pharmacist cover. I personally wouldn't change the opt out though.

Previously the point of conception was agreed by religious types to be the quickening, so abortifacients used before this time weren't specifically banned

Why this life though.throughout history punishments and torture ahe always been ok. Whatever people believed, hands were still chopped off if you stole. Devices were built to maim and torture.women were burned at the stake believed to be witches. Heads were chopped off etc and all this is ok.

Life is not so precious when shame is brought on the family and those responsible are killed.

Life is not so previous when people die of preventable diseases as no one will approve treatment.

Life is not precious whe its freezing outside and menstruation sees you sleeping outside in a hut with the animals and dying of exposure.

Who decides the morning after pill is responsible for destroying a life which is not ok?

People are free to believe what they like of course but it ends on a personal level. It should not impact others and if some can do it then all can.

Clinicians are allowed to opt out of providing services they have a moral objection to. They are, whether you like it or not! As PP have stayed they need to signpost a patient to someone who will provide for them. There are other instances of moral objections. For instance I do not refer boys for non medical circumcisions of boys.

I am a health care professional and think it's outrageous to refuse patients treatment
I agree, maybe there isn't a way around having a conscience clause and providing healthcare for all.
Maybe I'm being unrealistic.

I'm just very cynical of being forced to do something I believe is immoral and I don't trust my support structures to be able to defend me. The Maya Forstater case is similar, in my opinion. I hope she wins. We should be able to have opinions.

Finally the fact it is healthcare in question somewhat skews people's answers. We don't feel comfortable with healthcare workers having the same rights as IT systems analysts or assembly line operatives.
We don't let the police go on strike. We don't pay the fire service enough. We refer to nurses as angels rather than pay them properly.
We expect a certain amount of self sacrifice from healthcare workers, and I think that colours this discussion somewhat.

Who decides the morning after pill is responsible for destroying a life which is not ok?
You're preaching to the choir, I'd have it available in vending machines personally. I'm not anti-contraception.

Pretty sure you’re allowed to use your own moral compass as long as you are not discriminating against a protected characteristic, so sex, race, disability, sexual orientation etc.

Don’t think being a pimp or a procurer of surrogates is a protected characteristic.

I find the religious argument such bullshit. My husband comes from a Muslim family and out of curiosity I asked him about Muslims who work in Tesco etc and sell alcohol to people.

He said it’s considered fine because even though alcohol is prohibited for a Muslim they are selling it on behalf of the company and alcohol is legal in this country.

Somehow people can overcome their religious objections to serve booze, but not when it comes to emergency contraception. Yeah, right.

But the MAP will only ever be taken by someone female - so how is this not discriminating against a protected characteristic - i.e. sex?

Don’t think being a pimp or a procurer of surrogates is a protected characteristic.
Do you think that if the pimp or procurer accused you of racism or colonialism or transphobia etc you would still remain employed?
Genuinely, do you think that if we made abhorrent stuff legal, your employer, your union and the justice system will all protect you for having an opinion and speaking out?
They won't.

And I get the concept of a conscience clause - absolutely. But at what point does the state step in and say that you can't impose your religious beliefs on someone else to their detriment?

At the minimum there should be an additional framework around this - e.g. you cannot exercise your conscientious objection in this pharmacy as we are the only premises within a 30 mile radius/open late etc., and we have no other pharmacist that can cover you. Surely there needs to be a legal safeguard to say that you can exercise that objection as long as there is another pharmacy within a certain distance, with the same (or better) opening hours and which will dispense the MAP.

In the case of the woman being refused when she had already paid online and was going to collect, it's indefensible. If the pharmacist is able to exercise their conscientious objection then the pharmacy shouldn't be offering an online option for the MAP if they can't guarantee it will be filled.

Isn't the point that in body is asking the pharmacist to take the pill. Neither have they prescribed it.

ControversialFerret I agree entirely. That pharmacist was in the wrong and the situation is untenable. One person shouldn't be able to gatekeep like that.

And unless they are refusing to give out viagra , methadone, non halal, non kosher , non vegetarian, alcohol containing, sperm count affecting, medication as well then the only people affected are women and it's not religion its sexist discrimination.